Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bringing Down The House
Jeff Toobin of The New Yorker comments on the likely strategy of the Lewis Libby defense team in the Plame investigation:
At the trial, Libbys team will try to undermine the journalists credibility by challenging them on everything from sloppy note-taking to evidence of bias. This guy is on trial for his freedom, and its not his job to be worried about the rights of the witnesses against him, a person close to Libbys defense team said. There are going to be fights over access to the reporters notes, their prior history and credibility, and their interviews with other people. By the time this trial is over, the press is going to regret that this case was ever brought.
And how much damage might Libby's team be able to do? I have no idea, and part of the answer will depend on how much latitude the judge allows the defense in deposing witnesses from the media. However, as a matter of SPECULATION, readers might be interested in my guesses as to just how badly the Libby trial might damage the stature of the news media.
Are those enough caveats? Then on to the guesswork - the case can be made that the Libby trial will become the trial of the (new) century and shatter the credibility of the media in a way that makes RatherGate look as embarrassing and unimportant as on on-air sneeze.
Very briefly, here are the three main points:
(1) It *MAY* be the case that Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell of NBC News are conspiring to conceal misleading and possibly perjured testimony by Tim Russert to Special Counsel Fitzgerald. Since that testimony was central to the indictment and resignation of the Vice President's Chief of Staff, this little glitch in Russert's testimony has had dramatic (and unforeseen) consequences.
Their *POSSIBLE* motive - the protection of other sources, possibly including (I am serious) Alan Greenspan and Dick Cheney.
(2) The NY Times will take a hit when (*IF*) Nick Kristof is forced to admit that he was aware of Valerie Plame's CIA connection prior to the publication of the Novak column, and that he had previously used Ms. Plame as a source for some columns. Since Mr. Kristof's columns of May 6 and June 13 2003 triggered the Wilson story, his previously undisclosed involvement will raise eyebrows. To say the least.
(3) The Washington Post will find another Bob Woodward on their hands when (*IF*) Walter Pincus is forced to admit that the Plame leak he received on July 12 2003 was *not* his first leak of the news that Wilson's wife was at the CIA. We will learn (I am *GUESSING*) that Mr. Pincus was apprised of her status through State Department (or possibly CIA) sources back in June 2003. Why did he keep quiet, and how did the WaPo miss this? Well, why did Woodward keep quiet? Source protection.
Are all three of these scenarios going to unfold as I suspect? Presumably not. But if the Libby team gets lucky with even one of them, the Libby trial will be deeply problematic for Fitzgerald, and for the media. And for the rest of us, perhaps these ideas can help some enterprising journalists re-direct their attention and break (or close out) these possible stories.
Clearly the most dramatic allegation I am making involves Russert and Mitchell, so let's start there.
proect Cheney and Greenspan.Through the summer of 2005 bloggers picked at and questioned the NBC press release "explaining" Tim Russert's testimony to Fitzgerald:
During the interview, Mr. Russert was asked limited questions by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about a telephone conversation initiated by Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, in early July of last year. Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.
Please (said bloggers, not to mention Adam Liptak of the Times) - enough with the surname and the job description ("operative"), and answer a simpler and more relevant question - did you tell Libby anything about Wilson's wife being at the CIA?
Well. Mr. Russert resolutely avoided that question on his own "Meet The Press". However, the subject came up twice when he and Brian Williams covered the news of the Libby indictment. What did Mr. Russert say?
...
